Proffitt: Softer politics, for now

Waldo Proffitt

Published: Saturday, December 1, 2012 at 1:00 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, November 30, 2012 at 6:42 p.m.

It strikes me that the dialogue between Democrats and Republicans has become a bit less acerbic and more civil since the election. I write these words with more than a little trepidation because something could happen between the time I write them and the time you read them that could change the situation completely.

And I know my perception could be influenced by my hope that I am right. I am a strong believer in a vigorous two-party system and I think the system works best when the differences between the parties are expressed in calm and considerate language that can be understood by the voters.

That's what has been happening recently. The policy differences between the parties still exist but the language has moderated -- even in the Susan Rice affair, currently the leading newsmaker in the party warfare.

You will recall that Ms. Rice is the U.S ambassador to the United Nations and widely believed to be a candidate -- perhaps the leading candidate -- to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in the second term of President Obama.

Three GOP Senators -- John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte -- have said that if she is nominated they will oppose her. I personally think she would make a splendid appointment. So do lots of other people, including many Republicans, but the three senators are well within their rights. Ms. Rice asked for a meeting with them, and on Tuesday she, along with acting CIA Director Michael Morell, met for more than an hour with them.

Topic A was the explanation that she had given on television of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

Rice said that she and Morell had explained to the senators that, "the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: There was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi. While, we certainly wish that we had had perfect information just days after the terrorist attack, as is often the case, the intelligence assessment has evolved. We stressed that neither I nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the American people at any stage in this process, and the administration updated Congress and the American people as our assessments evolved."

After the meeting the senators said they were still "disturbed." That's pretty mild stuff, and it's even more to the point when you understand that all this repartee is a warm-up to a debate looming when and if Rice is nominated for the post of secretary of state.

Traditionally, voting against a presidential cabinet nominee is not something senators of either party undertake lightly. The Senate has not voted to reject a nominee for a Cabinet position since 1989, when it voted down President George H.W. Bush's nomination of John Tower to be secretary of defense. Unlike that case, the Senate is now controlled by the president's own party.

This example cited here, taken from Senate proceedings, is illustrative of what I perceive to be happening in Washington -- starting at the top: President Obama had lunch at the White House Thursday with Mitt Romney, his rival in the Nov. 6 election. The lunch was closed to reporters and photographers and as I write these words there has not been any announcement about what was discussed. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney declined to answer questions on the meeting, saying, "it's a private lunch and we're going to leave it at that."

I do not know what has caused this period of verbal restraint -- and it may have ended by the time you read this. But I consider it a good thing and I hope it will continue for a while.

There is a lot of work to be done both in the remaining session of this Congress and in the early months of the new session starting next year. The president has laid out a hefty agenda of things needed to be done to protect the general welfare and enhance national security. Some of his proposals will meet approval from both parties in Congress. Others will not. And the voters will be better served if all of them are debated in clear and forceful language untainted by partisan vitriol.

Waldo Proffitt is the former editor of the Herald-Tribune. Email: Waldo_Proffitt@yahoo.com.

This story appeared in print on page A16

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.